The Kerala High Court has ruled in favor of a new normalization formula for engineering admissions under the Kerala Engineering Architecture and Medical (KEAM) 2026 prospectus. The decision was made in response to petitions filed by students from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) who challenged the state’s revised method for equalizing marks from different education boards, including CBSE, ICSE, and the State Board. This case was titled Jomon Jaison & ors v The State of Kerala & anr and related cases.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas presided over the matter, concluding that the updated formula did not exhibit any arbitrariness, unfairness, or legal violations. The court noted that the revised system aims to address disparities resulting from the previous standardization process, following recommendations from an internal committee. “The system of normalization recommended by the Internal Committee is not a new system. It has been in vogue in the State of Tamil Nadu for several years without any complaint,” the court remarked.
The petitions challenged Clauses 1.4 and 9.7.4 of the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses 2026 (Prospectus 2026). The petitioners contended that the new normalization method lacked adequate scientific study or expert review and could negatively impact CBSE students. They argued it would unfairly alter the calculation of marks for engineering entrance rank lists, which are traditionally based on 50% weightage each from KEAM examination scores and qualifying examination marks.
The State defended the revised formula, emphasizing that the previous standardization led to complaints due to the downward revision of marks for students from certain boards. An internal committee, which included the Commissioner for Entrance Examination, the Director of Technical Education, and the Director of SCERT, reviewed the issue and recommended adopting a normalization method similar to Tamil Nadu’s. Under this system, the highest mark in each board is considered 100%, and other students’ marks are adjusted accordingly.
The court accepted the State’s submissions, stressing that the revised system is neither new nor untested, having been implemented successfully in Tamil Nadu for several years. Additionally, the Madras High Court had previously endorsed this approach. The court dismissed claims that the internal committee lacked the necessary expertise, noting that the officials involved were well-versed in entrance examinations and educational administration.
More Read
Justice Thomas concluded that judicial interference was unnecessary, as educational policies and evaluation methods fall within the purview of expert bodies and government authorities. The court emphasized that while absolute equality is an ideal, it is challenging to achieve across different boards with varying curricula. “Merely because there can be minor errors in a system of examination and evaluation introduced by the Government, the court ought not to sit in judgment over the wisdom of such a scheme or system unless serious prejudice is expressly shown,” the court stated.
Advocates TS Harikumar and PB Sahasranaman represented some petitioners, while senior counsel KP Satheesan and advocates P Mohandas, K Sudhinkumar, Sabu Pullan, R Bhaskara Krishnan, and Bharath Mohan appeared for petitioners in related matters. Senior government pleader PG Pramod and State attorney N Manoj Kumar represented the State.
